In my piece, I noted that—so far at least—I hadn’t encountered anything overtly preachy or that one might describe as garishly political or “overly woke”.
Aaand done with the article! Good, that didn’t take too long.
What’s wrong with acknowledging a term a lot of people use? It’s also implying it as it’s only acknowledging the word and not endorsing it, the “…” for that I think.
And the article is well written, explains what’s lacking, gives an alternative way of doing it better.
It’s a term lot of kids use and it’s a real IP now whether you like it or not. The author did not use it unironially, it’s very clearly ironic. I would also remind you that you are doing what those “anti-woke” people do, making a firm assumption over a term/word without looking at the material/substance.
Valve barely talks to press anyways, in a very similar fashion as Apple. At worst, maybe The Verge won’t get a Steam Deck 2 review unit ahead of time or something.
Hot take: it is a really good game that is a ton of fun. It got really bad press from “professional” gamers because they can’t play it 10 hours a day for the next year.
The main deficiency with the game is the lack of end game content. The story was fun, the end game is fun, but there isn’t enough of it.
I posted a pretty well-reasoned review on the subject. I don’t think Skill Up is being deceptive or anything. There are good things in the game, but there’s also soooo many bad decisions made in the process.
The tutorial takes longer than an hour, but I understand and agree with your point. The game needs more endgame content.
The repetitive missions would be fine if there were also additional difficult goal type activities. It’s a fun core game that needs a solid progression loop.
Please, i played the closed beta, the game is terrible, the only reason it has positive reviews in steam is because of the low playerbase that is fooling themselves because they purchased already. Just check the small number of reviews and concurrent players for a game this big. The main point to make out of this article is that most people already saw from a mile away that the game was terrible from the youtube previews and closed betas
Crazy how that didn’t happen with Anthem and Babylon Fall huh, maybe because it is different and there is something people like there. Will it be enough to keep going? I don’t know, but having micro transactions in a full priced game does deserve the hate.
This only works if you spin this with a product leadership strategy:
Shovelware games that don’t offer a solid chunk of hours or any kind of replayability should be priced lower, and proper games should be priced normally.
The thing is, this is not at all how pricing works if you’re building a business model. Prices are always heavily influenced by what the consumer is willing to pay, or in this case what they’ve been used to for years. For as long as I can remember “full price” has always been $50 or $60.
Special editions with marginal bonus content, $10 price increases on the base game and shitty DLC (horse armor comes to mind) are all examples of corporate shit tests, designed to see how far they can take it.
History has proven though, that changing consumer expectations is among the more difficult things to do in a market where alternatives are rampant. Though the whole franchise loyalty thing kinda ruins that, but I’ll be damned if I have to pay $200 for a game. That will promt me to just play something else instead.
No. This is absolutely wrong. If a game is short but does something unique and engaging it’s worth more than the next open world game that wastes your time. The amount of time a game takes to complete has next to nothing to do with the value a consumer gets from the game.
A “proper game” isn’t one that takes 60+ hours to complete. A proper game is one that takes an idea and does something interesting with it, or at least tries to create the most enjoyable experience for a player as possible.
I don’t want to trudge through an open world collecting bullshit they put in just to make me spend more time. I want an interesting experience that maximizes my enjoyment per hour. If it’s low enjoyment per hour there’s a million other things I could be doing instead.
Which is exactly why my first sentence explicitly states “product leadership”.
I agree, we don’t need any more games that prolong a shitty experience just to use collective playtime as a metric of success.
The correct metric could be play time AND experience rating: If I manage to put 300 hours into a game, none of it feels repetitive and I’m still having fun I’d be willing to spend more than if I get a couple hours of amazing gameplay and a giant “collect all these flags” middle finger for 100% completion.
Ultimately we need publishers to stop their short-term value strategies and start investing in long-term value from reputation, popular IPs and games that will be remembered.
You can tell gaming has been mid for so long that we get a couple of ok titles again and they are like “there is no room for all these GOTY titles!!” lol
Man, the comment section here is wild! If we would all listen to Lemmy, we would need to boycott: Nintendo, Sony, Windows, Ubisoft, Activision Blizzard, Pokemon, Disney+, Netflix, every other streaming service that exists. We also need to boycott Fromsoftware a little bit because for some reason a 40$ game is a scam…
It’s feels impossible to talk about anything positive in most of Lemmy’s sub’s. People here are calling people dumb and stupid for having fun with a console, while they suck off Steam that also just shut down a Fan Mod for Counter Strike and unless other Fan Games, they had approval to develop it.
If we would all listen to Lemmy, we would need to boycott: Nintendo, Sony, Windows, Ubisoft, Activision Blizzard, Pokemon, Disney+, Netflix
I do boycott all of these as well as EA (made an exception for Split Fiction), most fast food restaurants, and I am trying to use Amazon significantly less.
Its probably the case that these are separate groups.
These prices are not pulled out of asses, they calculate the maximum they can charge while keeping or increasing their market share/profitbaility. It sucks the games are going up but people are entitled to begrudgingly take part because they enjoy the product.
Sorry, folks. We’re still working on the browser plugin that automatically hides/downvotes all social media content that raises the topic of Sweet Baby Inc. You’ll just have to do it manually for now.
I would be careful with such generalizations - not because I’d be downvoted into a hole (I’ve turned the scores off and just DGAF), but it’s epistemologically a bad habit. However, whatever I’ve seen so far that SBI had their fingers in does have a certain fellow-kids, safe-edgy, corporate-approved, plushie-anarchist tone, the dialogues are atrociously bad and disjointed from their theme (Sable’s postapocalypse, for instance). They can do a less funny version of Joss Whedon’s relaxed banter and they tend to stick it everywhere. But what I really dislike about SBI is that it’s obviously a grift, making developers cough protection money to add pronouns and hair colors to characters.
So not as cheap as the (inflation adjusted) PS2 ($550) or PS4 ($540), but cheaper than the $780 of the PS3. PS1 was close at $620.
Also games back in 1995 were around $50, which is $103 today.
My theory is, that most people who don’t like the idea of Suicide Squad simply don’t buy and do not play. As there was enough warning before and lot of YouTubers hating on the game; even before it was playable.
I think people would be mad. Imagine you play a game at your friend’s home on his Series X, and then proceed to buy the game so you can play multiplayer online, only to then have a certain features or game modes missing (say you get team death match but not battle royale because it uses too much memory).
It’s not that easy to communicate feature disparity. Some people probably don’t even know which Xbox they have.
At some point, it’s on you to know what your machine can and can’t handle. They put big letters on the front of each game telling you if it’s able to play on the series X and series S. It is right there lol. 
Also, with smart delivery, it would probably be trivial for Microsoft to have a modal pop up saying “this game is not optimized for series S and will not play, do you still want to purchase?”
No, the real issue here is developers (not their fault mind you). The moment Microsoft says “you don’t have to make it playable on the S,“ they simply won’t. Because why would you? 
S is required if you want to release a game on X. This means you cannot leverage the technical maximum of X, ever, because the game and all it’s features must run on S.
Yes we know. The comment at the top of this chain is talking about whether or not Microsoft could stop allowing that requirement and the potential blowback. Scroll to the top and start from the beginning you’ll see. 
Are you really not comprehending what I said? To re-iterate: the cost-to-returns ratio to spend man hours for certain features is not feasible because of how much time would need to be spent. This, at worst means some titles will simply not have feature X, and at average means the “worst first” development method means some games will just be worse, than they could have been, if it were merely X, PS5 and PC to consider.
I think we agree that MS bungled their approach and overestimated that cloud powered gaming would take off. But the reality of it is that S has become a thing that holds down game development, and like with BG3, gives sony pseudo exclusivity on consoles. It’s also likely what caused 343 to never ship couch-coop on Halo. It worked to some extent, but simply wasn’t worth the hours to finish for S.
Sooner or later MS has to tackle the issue somehow, and if I had to guess, they’ll rather push for a 0.5 gen jump instead of just screwing with people who bought S.
It’s easier to say a game is “newest gen optimized” than to backtrack on their promise.
If you are talking about something completely different, then no worries, carry on. This was merely my 2 cents on the topic.
I guess not and frankly I just don’t feel like speaking further with you given the completely needless hostility over what is likely just our talking at cross purposes. Have a good one.
I did not mean that in a hostile way. I asked because you kept replying to my comments, but disregarding their content while telling me to stop talking.
Based on the vote ratio, other people got the point just fine and didn’t feel like they needed to tell me to be silent or scroll back up.
Yep and a lot of times, we won’t even hear about it. It’ll just be another game that happens to be on Playstation and not Xbox, a defacto exclusive of sorts.
If a game can’t run on the Series S it means it also can’t be ported to the PC. Turn down the resolution and graphics settings until you get the same fps target and continue in with your day.
I would expect any game from a developer that complains about this to be so poorly optimized that it runs like it would on the Series S on the bigger consoles, and likely have garbage gameplay as well because they spent all of their budget on graphics.
Ok, but game they’re talking about here, Baldur’s Gate 3, runs just fine on PC. But they can’t get a specific feature to run on Series S that can run on X. You might want to read the article before commenting?
Problem is that it can turn into a slippery slope. Where should MS draw the line if they start to allow Series X exclusive content? Can developers cut entire game modes from the S version if they just ask kindly enough? Or maybe ignore the S version completely? The risk is that developers are going to abuse this opportunity.
MS wants people to see the Series S as a viable purchase. Why should you buy it when you won’t be able to play the next big release in full?
Yes, they should be able to say "this game doesn't run on series S" because it's significantly worse than the other options and it doesn't deserve the work it takes. It doesn't even have CPU parity, which is a much bigger deal than less GPU cores.
That will just betray all the customers who bought Series S. Will they upgrade to a Series X to play the next big thing? No, they will probably just buy a PS5 instead. Why should they continue to stay loyal with MS?
How is it any different than the number of games coming out that betray all the things they promised?
As a series S owner, I never expected this thing to be able to play modern AAA games for 7-10 years like previous gens. It’s delusional. It was $300 with a controller ffs lol
forbes.com
Ważne